Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 04:51:04PM -0700, Henry B. Hotz wrote:
> > At the risk of diluting my message: I still think it's a mistake to
> > call it gss instead of something like gss-noprot. I believe this
> > will cause misunderstandings in the future when we get the security
> > layer of gssapi implemented.
> Well, I don't agree with this, but if others want it changed, it can
> certainly be changed. And it can only be changed *now*, and not once we
> But we have "host" and "hostssl", not "hostnossl" and "host". So the way we
> are donig it now is IMO more consistent with what we have in other parts of pg.
Actually we have "hostssl", "hostnossl" and "host".
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Magnus Hagander||Date: 2007-10-25 13:06:09|
|Subject: Re: 8.3 GSS Issues|
|Previous:||From: Hubert FONGARNAND||Date: 2007-10-25 11:49:57|
|Subject: Re: PostGreSQL and zlib|